Logic flawed on anti-Voter ID argument

Editor, the Record:In response to the Sept. 25 editorial on Voter ID and the misconceptions about the law: Since there are few, if any, voter-fraud convictions, or, according to the paper, "voter impersonation," it does not exist. With the same reasoning, one could also say that since there are few or no littering convict...

Comment

poconorecord.com

Writer

Posted Oct. 3, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Posted Oct. 3, 2012 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

Editor, the Record:

In response to the Sept. 25 editorial on Voter ID and the misconceptions about the law: Since there are few, if any, voter-fraud convictions, or, according to the paper, "voter impersonation," it does not exist. With the same reasoning, one could also say that since there are few or no littering convictions, littering must be nearly non-existent. Anyone who has looked out the window of their car knows that is not true.

I recently heard a Democratic State Congresswoman state, "The Republicans say, 'What is the big deal? Photo ID is needed for so many things.' " Her response: "The big deal is that people have died for you to have the right to vote." That appears to me as the best reason to protect yours and my vote; that the person casting the vote is the person they claim they are.

I personally do not want someone voting with my name. A photo ID does not give you the right to vote; it verifies who you are. So the preception appears that the Republicans are the only people that all drive, fly on airlines, have a bank account, cash a check or have a credit card, buy tobacco products and liquor; and according to this paper, are the only ones that are informed about voting and the voting laws.

Voter fraud was on national television during the Democratic National Convention. Three times, they voted to add God and Jerusalem to the Democratic platform and even after the third vote, which did not go the way they wanted, they passed it anyway.